US, Russia Reach Nuclear Arsenal Agreement

Peace Corps Library writes "The United States and Russia, seeking to move forward on one of the most significant arms control treaties since the end of the cold war, announced that they had reached a preliminary agreement on cutting each country's stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons, effectively setting the stage for a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), a cold war-era pact that expires in December. Under the framework, negotiators are to be instructed to craft a treaty that would cut strategic warheads for each side to between 1,500 and 1,675, down from the limit of 2,200 slated to take effect in 2012 under the Treaty of Moscow (PDF) signed by President George W. Bush. The limit on delivery vehicles would be cut to between 500 and 1,100 from the 1,600 currently allowed under Start. Perhaps more important than the specific limits would be a revised and extended verification system that otherwise would expire with Start in December. The United States currently has 1,198 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and bombers, which together are capable of delivering 5,576 warheads, according to its most recent Start report in January, while Russia reported that it has 816 delivery vehicles capable of delivering 3,909 warheads. 'We have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of danger that weapons proliferation is presenting today,' said President Obama."

Comments

Down to 95% of the world's arsenals!

[fantomas]

BBC radio is reporting this will bring the USA and Russia down to owning a mere 95% of the world's nuclear weapons. Go USA! Go Russia!

Seriously, good work both countries for making a step in the right direction. But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As one of the Rand Corporation's stone cold game theorists said, those would be "tragic, but distinguishable, outcomes".

Nuclear weapons are powerful, extremely so by the standards of just about anything else(short of real sci-fi stuff, or fuel air bombs representing a week of the western world's refinery output); but they are hardly powerful enough that a dozen and a thousand are the same.

Even if we overestimated and supposed that, for ease of calculation, a single nuclear strike could completely eliminate a city, all but the very smallest countries have substantially more than 12 cities, and a fair amount of hinterland. Not to mention the fact that unpleasant side effects like nuclear winter and social chaos, which would presumably do most of the killing after the first couple of days, would be far more severe with more warheads rather than fewer.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals!

[A. B3ttik]

I don't think a dozen nukes would cripple the US beyond repair... not by a long shot. It would be like a dozen hurricane Katrina's and the economy would go to shit but for the most part, the survivor's lives would still be better than 95% of the rest of the world's and we'd still be eating at restuarants and driving nice cars to work. it's not like we'd be roaming the wastelands eating Iguana-on-a-Stick or anything like that.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals!

[A. B3ttik]

But keep going, you've got a long way to go before you can start preaching to countries with a dozen or nuclear weapons about the need for restraint.

I don't buy that. One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.

It's not our number of nukes that allows us to preach to Iran and N. Korea, it's the fact that our leaders are held to certain standards. Our presidents get in trouble for misspeaking or forgetting to bow or not dispensing enough foreign aid; the leaders of the aforementioned countries give speeches advocating genocide... to thunderous applause.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals!

[Hatta]

One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.

One nuke in American hands justifies the arsenal of every madman out there. As long as America holds a single nuke, any dictator can point to it and argue that he has a sovereign right to self-defense against American aggression. Do as I say, not as I do never works. It's far more dangerous to have these things than to not have them. We need a clear, unambiguous policy that nukes are absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards. Only then will anyone take disarmament seriously.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals!

[readin]

Madmen dictators are not 4-year-olds. They don't decide whether to build nukes based on their dad setting a good example for them. The calculate their self-interest and make their decision. Or they calculate whatever mad purpose they have (genocide against Israel) and make their decision. They don't think about the need to defend against American nukes because they know that the US refrains from using nukes except when attacked by nukes. Building nukes for themselves increases the risk of being a victim of a US nuke attack. The only kind of attack the dictator's nukes deter are conventional attacks - and that has nothing to do with the US already having nukes. The US abandoning nukes would make it even more attractive for smaller countries to build them. Right now, NK's nukes merely deter a conventional American attack. Remove American nukes and threats of nuclear retaliation, and suddenly NK's nukes give them the ability to extort anything they want from their defenseless neighbors. Americans and western Europeans need to give up their patronizing attitudes toward other countries. Those other countries aren't children who will imitate our adult ways like a child imitates his parents. Those other countries are ruled by adults who calculate their self-interests the way an adult does.

Re:Down to 95% of the world's arsenals!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite some examples, I think most of your numbers are hog-wash and made up on the spot.

Would any country ever give up ALL their nukes?

[Trip6]

I think not! These weapons are with us for good.

Really?!?

[Comatose51]

But John R. Bolton, who was ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said Mr. Obama was going too far. "The number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low," he said.

Really? They're aiming for 500 launch vehicles. Are there even that many targets to nuke or does Bolton just want us to do it a few times over for the refried beans effect? Also, this is 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads so I assume there are some MIRVs in there. I was under the impression that the whole defense aspect of nukes was to make retaliation too expensive for the other side to shoot first. If that's the case, 500 launch vehicles and 1,500 warheads would be enough to make anyone regret it. France, China, and the UK seem to be pretty secure with even less.

Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009

[MozeeToby]

I've really got to love our society. A more than slightly crazy musician and probable child molester dies and it's all the news can talk about for three weeks as people cry in the streets and memorial concerts are held all over the country. A man who was partially responsible for guiding the world through the cold war without destroying modern civilization dies and no one even knows who he is.

Re:Robert Strange McNamara 1916 - 2009

[bogjobber]

In case you did not know, the massive nuclear buildup by the US in the 1950's and 1960's was largely based on incomplete intelligence and a great deal of incompetence by the Eisenhower and (much less so) the Kennedy administrations. Although McNamara recognized that the US had a large advantage in both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, he still continued the massive buildup in nuclear weapons started by Eisenhower and pushed the idea of mutually assured destruction. It led to the greatest period of nuclear tension we ever had, and almost led us to nuclear war.

In the 1950's the US thought the Soviets were greatly increasing their nuclear arsenal in order to gain first strike capabilities. This was false and not supported by strong intelligence, and many in the Eisenhower administration did not take proper precautions to ensure this was correct. The US initiated a period of nuclear proliferation that was understandably viewed by the Soviets as an attempt to gain first strike capability, and they quickly followed suit with their own nuclear buildup.

Mr. McNamara did not abandon the idea of massive retaliation, he actually advanced it. He said himself said (paraphrasing) that it was pure luck that we did not end up in a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. He also continued the ludicrous notion of the domino theory which led to the escalation of the Vietnam War under his command.

Also, (taken from the NY Times book review of his autobiography) he realized relatively early in the Vietnam war that it could not be won by military force, but did not fight for his opinion and didn't take a public stance on that position until the 1990's. He and the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon administrations destroyed the common trust and confidence in our government, which still has far-reaching consequences today. He oversaw one of the largest expansions of the US military in history, which can be directly traced to our ridiculous defense policy and budget today.

Mr. McNamara was a brilliant man, but he is a symbol of how arrogance and loyalty to authority dragged our country to the brink of destruction. Combined with his (and the rest of the government's) mismanagement of the Vietnam War, Mr. McNamara is certainly not a politician that will be missed by me.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[MightyYar]

Is there a white equivalent of the NAACP?

No, why would there be? Was there a white equivalent of slavery in the US?

Our histories are parallel and intertwined, but not equal. Without injustice, the NAACP would not be necessary. The NAACP was started in the early 1900s, when blacks often couldn't vote or stay in the same hotel or use the same drinking fountain. The NAACP is a demonstration of exactly what I'm talking about - we still haven't healed.

Face it - in the US it is still a tremendous advantage to be a white man.

At a certain point, the effects of ancient history have dwindled to nothing. I'd say that point is already past.

The numbers disagree with you. Blacks are still disadvantaged. If you, as a white guy, don't see racism on a day-to-day basis then I'd say you aren't paying much attention, or you are very lucky and live in a place which I would love to move to.